Overtaking by 80 knots please slow down

[rockwoodrv9]

The way I see it is the airliners have previously scheduled an arrival time. Even if they are a bit early or late, they were scheduled. If you file a flight plan and are coming in at your scheduled time, I can understand the thoughts of being "equal", but we don't live in the dream world. Making one person happy who can easily do a go around over the safety and cost of an airliner doing a go around is just not going to happen.

I do understand that the percentage of costs paid to the FAA are by the airliners are much higher than that paid by GA. I am thankful we even get the change to fly into the towered airports. Maybe after a long flight and already behind schedule I would have a different opinion, but for me it is just another few minutes I get to fly!

[tspear]

Originally Posted by rockwoodrv9

The way I see it is the airliners have previously scheduled an arrival time. Even if they are a bit early or late, they were scheduled. If you file a flight plan and are coming in at your scheduled time, I can understand the thoughts of being "equal", but we don't live in the dream world. Making one person happy who can easily do a go around over the safety and cost of an airliner doing a go around is just not going to happen.

I do understand that the percentage of costs paid to the FAA are by the airliners are much higher than that paid by GA. I am thankful we even get the change to fly into the towered airports. Maybe after a long flight and already behind schedule I would have a different opinion, but for me it is just another few minutes I get to fly!

Actually, the airlines do not pay any taxes. There is a tax on passengers, which is readily seen on almost every ticket.
GA does pay fuel taxes.

Tim

[rockwoodrv9]

Originally Posted by tspear

Actually, the airlines do not pay any taxes. There is a tax on passengers, which is readily seen on almost every ticket.
GA does pay fuel taxes.

Tim

You are right. They do pay a bit more fuel tax than I do. Where any of that goes is a whole different discussion that DR does not want here! Ha!

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by n82rb

look at the other side, if im the one behind you i will be burning over 8000 lbs/hr on the go around.

Then don't delay... You're flying a company jet that has a revenue stream to cover its hourly rate... I don't. Any complaints, take them up with ATC for their poor planning.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by rockwoodrv9

The way I see it is the airliners have previously scheduled an arrival time. Even if they are a bit early or late, they were scheduled.

To be clear - I have nothing against trying to keep scheduled flights on-time, and agree ATC should do everything possible to make that happen. However:
It shouldn't be done at the expense of GA. Lately, there have been a number of incidents at local airports where ATC has tried to shoehorn in GA flights too closely, usually by getting the GA pilot to do something non-standard to start with, and then at the last minute telling the GA pilot to get out of the way for the commercial traffic behind.

[snopercod]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

... getting the GA pilot to do something non-standard...

Like doing a 360 while on a 2 mile final? Tower "made" me do that once and I went up and bitched about it afterwords. They explained that there was IFR traffic overtaking me and they would have had to make him fly the missed approach had they not gotten me out of the way. I explained to them that in my Lancair, maneuvering in the landing configuration can be dangerous - lots of LOC fatalities have happened by getting too slow in the pattern. I guess I should have told them "unable", but I hate to do that.

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by snopercod

Like doing a 360 while on a 2 mile final? Tower "made" me do that once and I went up and bitched about it afterwords. They explained that there was IFR traffic overtaking me and they would have had to make him fly the missed approach had they not gotten me out of the way. I explained to them that in my Lancair, maneuvering in the landing configuration can be dangerous - lots of LOC fatalities have happened by getting too slow in the pattern. I guess I should have told them "unable", but I hate to do that.

I have an issue with this kind of mindset.

Please don't take this as a dig at you personally as this is merely my personal opinion, but using the phrase UNABLE indicates that you physically cannot, or it would be hazardous to, comply with the issued clearance. If a pilot has trouble maneuvering in the landing configuration in normal operations, irrespective of the type of aircraft, this alone is not grounds to refuse a clearance. So long as the aircraft and pilot are ops-normal, (and the instruction won't take you into a CB, for example) there should be little to no reason to ever refuse a clearance.

The same can be said for a low-altitude go-around. IIRC most, if not all, type-certificated aircraft are certified to be able to climb in the landing configuration for the nominated runway (remember those P-charts where you had to reduce landing weight to make the climb gradient?).

[snopercod]

Originally Posted by KRviator

Please don't take this as a dig at you personally as this is merely my personal opinion, but using the phrase UNABLE indicates that you physically cannot, or it would be hazardous to, comply with the issued clearance.

No offense taken, and I agree with you. Tower's request was more annoying than hazardous because I have an AoA which I count on to alert me if I get too slow. His request required me to apply full power, retract the gear and flaps at the appropriate speeds, and initiate a climbing turn. Not only that, but his request was a violation of FAR ? 91.113 (g) "Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight..."

Asheville is a training facility, so I try to cut the new controllers some slack (most of the time). I have yet to use the "U-word", but I have called them afterwords and bitched a couple of times.

[mike newall]

I do like thread drift....

Unable may mean you physically cannot comply.

Unable may mean you are not willing to accept the instruction.

Unable may mean that to comply would be uneconomical.

Unable may mean that to comply may compromise flight safety.

Unable may mean you are just not having a good day and want to continue in a prompt manner in order to safely conclude a flight.

ATC is a two way agreement. Neither side can see the other's point of view sometimes and it is up to us as the service receiver to sometimes explain to the service provider, why their instruction may not be appropriate.

The above occasions are mainly in my work environment. I may refuse an oceanic clearance and have done on several occasions because it is uneconomical, I don't have the fuel (despite carrying extra) or several other reasons. Oh, and I have carried a lot of ATC folk on fam flights over the years so that we can help each other to understand and cooperate. I also liaised for our pilots to attend their radar training facility to experience being a controller for 30 minutes. Yea - I know - direct center fix, no speed control.....

In private flying, I have, for example refused a request to hold outside controlled airspace because the controller had a single movement inbound. Instead, I climbed and went over his airspace which allowed me to continue and him to bring his traffic in. Both parties were happy.

Sadly, we had an occasion this week at our home base where a late missed approach and orbit in a Cirrus resulted in a low level departure, spin and crash. This reinforces Mr Cod's valid input that a late missed may not be the safest course of action and would be a fine example of a polite refusal scenario.

[JordanGrant]

I love thread drift, too, and this is something I'm passionate about so I would like to respectfully disagree with KRviator's take, i.e. "there should be little to no reason to ever refuse a clearance." As an instructor pilot in the USAF, I've seen many, many instances of pilots getting themselves into unsafe situations out of an irrational desire to fulfill the expectations of an ATC controller, flight lead, SOF, or other authority figure. While you shouldn't be refusing a clearance for trivial reasons, there are plenty of situations where pilots should politely ask for something different, or if time is short just say "unable" and continue to aviate/navigate/communicate (in that priority). There is a pilot in COMMAND for a reason. The ATC controller is there to help you and help the system work, but he is not in command of the aircraft. Pilots would all do well to remember that, and not be afraid to exercise that authority from time to time.

My respectful point to snopercod would be - you had every right to refuse to fly a maneuver that you felt was unsafe. After the fact, I think it is unfair to take issue with the controller. As the pilot in command, once you accepted the clearance, you own it and the consequences are yours to bear. This is the two-edged knife of being a PIC.

Just to be clear, that was not intended to be personal in any way, just pointing out the individual posts for context. These are great debates and hangar discussions that all pilots have, or at least should have.